County Rates.

Gisborne Standard and Cook County Gazette, Volume V, Issue 623, 20 June 1891, Page 2

County Rates.

AN INTERESTING CASE-JUDGMENT RESERVED. At the R M. Court on Thursday, bef ore Mr Booth, a case County Council v. Percival Parker waa heard, the amount sued for being £2O 3a 9d. Mr R. N. Jones appeared for the plaintiff Council, and Mr DeLautonr for the defendant. Mr Jonea, in opening the case, said ail that rested on him was to prove that Mr Barker's name was on the books for the rates claimed, and that they had not been paid. He called Mr Warren, .County Clerk, to give the neceiairy evidence Mr DaLautour, in opening the defendant’s Case, said that the land for which the rata was claimed was native land to whioh Mr Barker had not a perfect title; that Mr Barker had lately tried to gain possession, but that the natives had refused to allow him to pat his sheep upon the block, and not being in occupation he was not liable. He called Mr W. D. Lysnar, who produced the incomplete deeds of the Tuawhatu estate. Mr Jackson produced the Land Court records. One block (Rangituria) he could not trace in the books. Mr Frank Barker deposed that since his father had disposed of the sheep in 1885 he had not been in occupation of the land. They had tried ia April last to put a flick of sheep on the l*nd> but about a hundred natives had prevented them, and the sheep bad then to be sold at a big loss. In cross-examination it was elicited that there had been an arrangement between his father and the Bink of New South Wales about the grazing of the sheep, but he was not aware of the terms. As rebutting evidence Mr Jones called Mr Parker, Manager of the Bank of New South Wales, who gave evidence that there was an arrangement with Mr Barker to allow the Bank’s sheep to depasture on the Tuawhatu estate. The arrangement was made in May, 1889, until December, and renewed in May, 1890, until the end of the year. Tbe Bank paid Mr Barker £7O a year. Mr DeLautour, for the def-nce, raised three points, that fhe rate was made retrospective, because it had been struck on December 12, 1890, for the period from April of the same year to March 31, 1891; that the demand was incorrect, because it included a block of which they had no knowledge. and it was impossible to proportion tbe quantum cf value for the remrioder; and that Mr Barker was not the occupier— if any» one was liable it was the Bank. Mr Barker’s deeds gave him no title; the natives would not allow him occupation, and it was clear the Bank was only an occupant at the will of the natives. If one trespasser arranged with another trespasser (as they would both appeal to be, seeing that Mr Barker could not get occupation) for grazing sheep on the land, that did not make the title any oleerer.

Mr Jones, io reply to the first point, said it raised the question of the invalidity of the sale as a whole, which the defendant was precluded from doing. He quoted a ruling of the Chief Justice to show that local bodies could make their rates retrospective. Ou the second point, as to the block not identic find, it was strange that such a mistake should have been made by the property tax assessor in Wellington, but it it was a mistake be submitted tha small block might be deducted, and judgment given on the remainder. He quoted authorities in support of this view. O > the third point ho said it had to be kept in view that no European claimed any legal interest In tbe land, and by the Bating Act, 1882, any European who was in actual occupation, or received rents and profits from the land, was liable for tbe rates. Mr Barker having received £7O from the Bank, came within the law.

His Worship said that the case wae a very important one, and as it was necessary that all the points raised and authorities quoted should be most carefully considered, be would take time to consider tbe case, reserving bis decision until Thured iy next. At present it seemed to him that the inclusion of a block whioh could not be traced made the demand informal. Mr Jones said it might be found that tha block was wrongly named on the roll. Before the other business was taken yestar* day morning, Mr Jones mentioned that he had found that tbe name Rangituria was an old name for the block which could not be traced, and he had given Mr DeLautour notice that he intended to apply for leave to have evidence taken to that effect. He asked that His Worship should not give judgment until after the application had been made. His Worship acceded to the request.